Tracing the evolution of languages.

Recent phylogenetic analysis borrowed from biology has largely succeeded in reconstructing meaningful lineages of cultural inheritance for several cultural domains including languages (Lipo & Madsen 2001). Relationships between languages show that lexical roots can be traced back to ancestral language communities across thousands of years of history (Kitchen, Assefa, & Mulligan, 2009). Other domains like craft technologies yielded similar phylogenetic patterns that can be recognized retrospectively as related to the origin (Buchanan & Collard, 2007; Lycett, 2009). Reconstruction of lineages offers useful information about the origin of cultural groups that can be considered together with geneography in understanding the dispersal of populations. Tree branch-like evidence of cultural domains is highly correlated with population histories although not perfectly so (Tehrani & Collard, 2009).

As previously noted the reason the phylogenetic approach seem a promising method for exploring cultural diversity is because of the similarities between cultural and biological evolution (see also Mace & Holden, 2005; Gray, Greenhill, & Ross, 2007). Cultural as well as linguistic evolution can be described as descent of traits with some modification. Linguistic traits are passed from one generation to the next, but can also be modified through contacts with other language groups. Anyone familiar with changes in world culture will have observed the increased utility of the English language and the inclusion of English phrases in other languages. For example within one generation the American greeting hi (hej) replaced the perfectly fine “good day” in the Danish language, and most Danes remain unaware of this change today. In that lexical change we have an example of linguistic evolution entirely in our lifetimes. Evolutionary research shows that biological species are created by selective adaptation to environmental niches. Human populations split in an analogous manner in the search for ecological niches that provide survival and comfort. Over time these evolutionary processes evolve into differences in cultures and languages. Current research shows that linguistic data enables us to reconstruct historical relationships from these tree branch-like models (Rogers, Feldman, & Ehrlich, 2009).

Social organization as represented in marital arrangements is an essential tool in tracing the dispersal of human groups and languages (Fortunato & Jordan, 2010). Indo-European and Austronesian are two large language families traced back to Neolithic expansion. Kinship words and terminologies have been reconstructed from ancestral proto-languages using comparative linguistics, and by comparing geographical patterns in kinship language. Using the phylogenetic techniques with these language families it is possible to understand past marital arrangements. Whether the culture promoted residence with male or female kin (living near husband’s or the wife’s kin) corresponded to whether the pre-historical society was agricultural or pastoral (where men were typically present in daily life), or oceanic (where men were frequently absent). Through these means it was possible to conclude that Indo-European languages reflected a residence pattern with male members of the family. However, in Polynesian societies where men were frequently absent travelling the ocean a pattern of marital residence with female family was inferred. These cultural adaptations reflect concrete benefits to survival when men are present to make daily decisions or largely away fishing or using the ocean for travel. Fortunato and Jordan argue that the phylogenetic comparative method on kinship language employs rigorous statistical methods that permit the reconstruction of changes in the pattern of cultural traits and insights into evolving social organization that is not necessarily preserved in either archeological or historical records.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 760